[EURO-Discuss] alac review

[JFC Morfin]

At 13:39 24/06/2008, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
>Dominik,
>My point is as follows:
>
>1. WSIS and its sequels have used the "civil society" for cosmetic
>reasons, but are fundamentally government led. I personally have no
>problem with that. After all, we have elected these governments to
>represent us, at least in democratic countries. If we do not like the
>positions they defend, we have the choice of voting for others.


Dear all,
I will first react to this remark, however my point is about all the 
other post as well. This also follows a private talk that I had with 
Westlake on the matter.

There is confusion that is progressively clarifying over the WSIS 
positions. This confusion results from the blocking of the WSIS 
process by the JPA issue. The way ICANN is blocking that process is 
through the confusion surrounding the ALAC that we are all helping. 
Therefore, the point is not to say who is at fault: we all are.

The WISI stated that the Information Society that the world wants to 
build is "people centered, à caractèe humain, centrada en la 
persona", and that it should develop on an equal footing between the 
regalian domain (govs, local admin, etc.), civil society, private 
sector, international entities, and the technical/normative area. It 
also agreed that the existing American structures were to continue to 
manage the Internet Legacy and that the emergent issues and 
management solutions were to be discussed through dynamic coalitions 
(open WGs) leading to a management through (governments [Geneva] and 
then stakeholders [Tunis]) enhanced cooperation.

The gap between that clear, simple, and widely accepted proposition 
and the current Internet legacy community's vision is seen in three 
main points: USA,  nature of the @large, and ICANN's role.


1) USA.

This is the "pachyderm in the marigold" syndrome. Where is it going 
to sit? Because, if it continues to sit in the middle, everyone will 
switch the marigolds for water and clean water. I.e. in plain text 
from a pseudo-internationalized no presentation layer Internet to a 
Multilingualized Internet. This is what france at large put forth to be 
voted on last year by ISO, wherein its position was only opposed by 
the UK, IE, and US. This depends on the NTIA, which appears to be far 
more open minded and pragmatic than the "over-southpacificated" 
ICANN. What is at stake is the post-JPA. As Betrand de la Chapelle 
(GAC VP for France) explained it: the outcome MUST be a plus for 
everyone, including the USA.


2) nature of the @larges.

As the france at large incident has shown it, ALAC is NOT representative 
of the whole @large community. As in every current user community, 
@large are split into two main categories: users and lead users.

The additional problem is that the "lead user" concept was first 
observed in the Internet and Free Software areas and, therefore, is 
more mature than in any other industrial sector. "Lead users" are 
(average) 1 to 2% of the user population, which adapts the products 
that they buy to their individual needs. This is due to the technical 
and educational possibilities that are available to them as well as 
the progressive increase of anti-technolocracy and ecologic reactions 
throuought the world.

This in a significant trend and in some industrial areas, such as the 
Internet, this is _the_ innovation track. Industry follows the lead 
users' quality in order to produce what the user will purchase in 
quantity. The well observed Internet process is clear: everything has 
been (1) developed by lead users [DNS, P2P, Voice over IP, etc.], (2) 
checked and amalgamated by the Industry reps [IETF] and (3) put on 
the market at low, for both sides, affordable prices.

The best example that we have of a functionning ALAC is the IETF. 
They were the @large users of the mid-1980s, owning and controlling 
their IMP and computers, having to make them work together. Now, they 
specify for others, and they meet the same kind of 
ethical/organizational difficulties that the ALAC does. This is the 
same way that they carried important reviews on their role and nature 
(RFC 3844, 3869, 3935) that every one of us should know rather well. 
Jeannette Hofman co-authored the key RFC 3844.

The WSIS understanding of the five Internet poles makes that the 
ALAC's scope is much wider than the IETF's, including new technolgies 
like politics, citizenship and human sciences, business, 
international affairs, and cultural/lingual diversity. If Govs still 
gain the main focus it is because they have far better training than 
others to assume a leading role - and because they are sovereign 
entities (as each of us are). However, my personal experience as an 
@large for 30 years has shown me that individuals can do the same. To 
think otherwise would be to believe that the people in Govs are more 
intelligent, more educated, more related, etc. than we are. If that 
was the case, I think we would have known this for some time now :-)

Two last points that Westlake and ICANN seem to miss :
- ALAC lead users are not voluntaries. They are here to protect the 
interests of their property (whole internet which supports their own system).
- as such they carry a policy; which usually seaking a peaceful 
equilbered stability. But they are to be convinced by ICANN, the 
sameway as they make their own opinions and decisions at the FGI?


3) ICANN's role is the main issue.

The WSIS/IGF is calling for enhanced cooperation to replace ICANN. 
ICANN is a candidate to be its own successor.
(a) it attempts to play the status quo in many areas where it feels 
it is rooted enough.
(b) it attempts to indebt large and long-term enough interests so 
that these interests will demand its continuation after Aug 31, 2009. 
The gTLDs campaign and IDNccTLD selective Fast Track are good examples.
(c) it attempts to consolidate its current structure, including the 
ALAC. This is where Westlake fits in.

What the French Minister Besson said yesterday after the OECD meeting 
and on behalf of Europe is: this is not enough. And what has been 
explained and understood by Peter Dungate Trush is that ICANN just 
wanted to consolidate its existing achitecture and is now interested 
in clearly understanding which architectural changes should be considered.


france at large position over the Westlake report

This report is unacceptable. This is not due to the Westlake people 
but rather to ICANN. They made them work on an inappropriate mission. 
There is no need for wasting our time and Westlake's time in 
discussing its conclusions as long as it does not get real. This is 
why I left the meeting room yesterday and talked with Westlake.

(1) Westlake must be told that this is a clean slate situation and 
must be told as to who the real world Internet @larges are, not only 
the ICANN accredited @larges. This means not only france at large, but 
all the individuals and corporations that co-develop the Internet and 
influence and/or compete with ICANN decisions, credibility, and 
interests. People who consider themselves as the owners of their own 
global system and the co-owners of the Internet. I would reasonably 
evaluate them as at least 20 million (2% of all users) that have the 
necessary competences in their specific or in many areas.

(2) Then, Westlake must contribute in first discovering what the 
ICANN products are for the market that they say they address (cf. 
Twomey, Friday(?) last), and then how they address the needs of the 
users and be appropriated by lead users; in order to root itself in 
their digital neighborhood.

Then, and only then, can Westlake's report be worth reading. From 
what we can grasp today, it could be interesting once the very basis 
is totally open to them. I will only advise them to communicate with 
the other Internet poles in order to see how their propositions could 
be received by ALAC's counterparts (GAC, BC, IETF, and WSIS dynamic coalitions.

jfc

PS. I expect Westlake to lurke on this list?